Re: Conffiles and Configuration files (again)
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You are mistaken. In the message archived at the URL
> <http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9802/msg00353.html>
> Christian states:
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Manoj> why are all conffiles also not configuration files?
> Christian> I guess they are (or at least, should be :).
> Manoj> Why are conffiles not a proper subset of configuration files?
> Christian> I think they are.
> ______________________________________________________________________
Frankly, Christian comes off as very confused [1] and self-contradictory in
that message. I don't believe this message represents the final conclusion of
the policy manager, it's just Christian trying to get a handle on the debate.
He has never posted one of his "policy weekly" messages on this, or changed
the policy manual.
Anyway, I continue to side with Ian Jackson and Dale Scheetz - quoting dale
from http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9802/msg00269.html:
> It has always been my understanding that a conffile was a special class
> file with respect to dpkg and nothing more. It has special rules for
> replacement, but every time I asked Ian J. I was told that a conffile was
> not the same thing as a config file.
--
see shy jo
[1] Christian: "I just read the whole tread and now I'm really confused 8-)"
-- http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9802/msg00319.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: